1. The case originated in an application (no.
74989/01) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court on 11
March 2001, under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), by a political
party, Ouranio Toxo, and by two Greek nationals, Mr Pavlos Voskopoulos
and Mr Petros Vassiliadis (“the applicants”), who were born in 1964
and 1960 respectively.

2. The applicants were represented by Mrs I. Kourtovik,
a lawyer practising in Athens. The Greek Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent's delegates, Mr M. Apessos, Senior Adviser
at the State Legal Council, Mr V. Kyriazopoulos, Adviser at the State
Legal Council, and Mrs S. Trekli, Legal Assistant at the State Legal
Council.

3. The applicants complained, in particular, of
a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the length
of criminal proceedings, and of a violation of their right to freedom
of association under Article 11.

4. The application was allocated to the Court's
First Section (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention)
was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

5. On 5 December 2002 the Court declared the application
partly inadmissible and decided to give notice to the Government of
the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Articles 8, 10, 11 and 14 of
the Convention.

6. By a decision of 27 May 2004, the Court declared
the application admissible in respect of the complaints under Article
6 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention.

7. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition
of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).

8. The applicants and the Government both submitted
written observations on the merits of the case (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

9. The political party
Ouranio Toxo(Rainbow),founded in 1994, has regularly taken part in elections since
that date. Its declared aims include the defence of the Macedonian minority
living in Greece. The other two applicants are members of the party's
political secretariat.

10. In September 1995 the party established its
headquarters in the town of Florina. The second and third applicants
affixed to the balcony of the premises a sign indicating the party's
name in the two languages spoken in the region: Greek and Macedonian.

11. According to the applicants, the opening of
the headquarters and the affixing of the sign triggered a wave of violent
protests by the town's inhabitants, but the police failed to take the
appropriate measures to protect them against the various attacks to
which they were subjected.

12. In particular, the offices were opened in
early September 1995 and on 12 September 1995 priests from the church
in Florina published a statement describing the applicants as “friends
of Skopje”, driven by “anti-Hellenic and treacherous sentiments”.
The statement continued as follows: “we call upon the people to join
a demonstration to protest against the enemies of Greece who arbitrarily
display signs with anti-Hellenic slogans, and we will demand their deportation.”

13. On 13 September 1995 the Florina town council
held an informal meeting and, by a resolution published in the local
press, decided to organise protests against the applicants.

14. On the same day the public prosecutor at the
Florina Criminal Court ordered the removal of the sign on the ground
that the inclusion of the party's name in Macedonian was liable to sow
discord (Article 192 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 23 below)
among the local population. Police officers removed the party's sign
without giving any explanation to the applicants, who then put up a
new sign. That evening, according to the applicants, while they were
inside the party headquarters a crowd of people, among whom they apparently
recognised the mayor, the deputy mayor and certain town councillors,
gathered in front of the building to shout threats and insults at them,
such as “traitors”, “dogs”, “death to the dogs of Skopje”,
“you're going to die”, and “we'll burn everything”. The crowd
also allegedly demanded that the applicants hand over the sign.

15. On 14 September 1995 at about 1.30 a.m. a
number of people allegedly attacked the party headquarters, and, after
breaking down the door, assaulted those inside and demanded that they
hand over the sign, which the applicants did. Another group entered
the premises at approximately 4 a.m., threw all the equipment and furniture
out of the window and set it on fire. According to the applicants, throughout
these events they made a number of telephone calls to the police station
located some 500 metres from the party headquarters, but were apparently
told that no officers were available to come out. The applicants submitted
that the public prosecutor's office took no action against those involved
in the incidents. However, criminal proceedings for inciting discord
were brought against four members of the party, including the second
and third applicants, under Article 192 of the Criminal Code. The bill
of indictment stated that “they had affixed to the party headquarters
a sign on which, among other things, the word vino-zito (rainbow) was written in a Slavic language, and had
thus sowed discord among the local inhabitants ...”. The applicants
were committed for trial.

16. The trial took place on 15 September 1998
before a single judge in the Florina Criminal Court, who acquitted the
applicants (judgment no. 979/1998). The court acknowledged that a crowd
had gathered in front of the party headquarters and that one of the
applicants had been beaten up. It found that there had also been criminal
damage, which had culminated in the premises being set on fire.

17. On 5 December 1995 four party members, including
the second and third applicants, lodged a criminal complaint and applied
to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties, alleging that those
responsible for the incidents had committed the following offences:
incitement to discord (Article 192 of the Criminal Code), breach of
the peace (Article 189), destruction of property (Article 381), criminal
damage (Article 330), trespass (Article 334), threats (Article 333),
insults (Article 361) and arson (Article 264).

18. On 24 November 1999 the Indictments Division
of the Florina Criminal Court considered that there was insufficient
evidence against the individuals named in the applicants' complaint
and decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against them (order
no. 30/1999).

19. On 10 December 1999 the applicants appealed.

20. On 4 April 2000 the Indictments Division of
the Court of Appeal for West Macedonia dismissed the appeal (order no.
27/2000).

21. On 4 May 2000 the applicants appealed on points
of law.

22. On 30 January 2003 the Criminal Division of
the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal as inadmissible (order
no. 176/2003).

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

23. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code
read as follows:

Article 189 – Breach of the peace

“1. Anyone who takes part in an unlawful assembly,
... attacks persons or property, or forcibly enters houses, dwellings
or other premises belonging to another, shall be punished by a prison
sentence of up to two years.

2. The perpetrators of such an attack and anyone
who has incited another to commit the attack shall be punished by a
prison sentence of at least three months.

3. The above-mentioned sentences shall be imposed
unless the offence attracts a harsher sentence under a different provision.”

Article 192 – Incitement of citizens
to discord

“Anyone who, publicly or otherwise, provokes
others to commit a violent act or sows discord among citizens, or incites
citizens to do so, thus causing a breach of the peace, shall be punished
by a prison sentence of up to two years, unless the offence attracts
a harsher sentence under a different provision.”

THE LAW

...

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE
11 OF THE CONVENTION

31. The applicants complained of interference
with their freedom of association on account of the acts directed against
them, the participation of the clergy and municipal authorities in those
acts, and the inactivity of the police when a group of demonstrators
broke into and ransacked the party headquarters. They relied on Article
11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right
to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise
of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions
on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the
police or of the administration of the State.”

A. The parties' submissions

32. The Government noted that the crux of the
present dispute was the removal of the sign bearing the impugned inscription.
They observed that the term vino-zito, written on the sign in a “Slavic alphabet”,
had a strong historical connotation. It had been used as the rallying
cry of forces seeking to capture the town of Florina during the civil
war in Macedonia. In the Government's view, feelings of discord among
the inhabitants of Florina could be provoked simply by mentioning this
term, since it reminded them of the civil war which followed the Second
World War, and during which lives were lost and properties destroyed.
The Government added that the sign had been removed in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However,
the applicants had put the sign back. In addition, the Government claimed
that the local police had not adopted a passive attitude towards the
incidents stirred up by the crowd. In this connection, they stressed
that when the sign had been taken down by the police officers, police
intervention had not been necessary because the tension in the crowd
had subsided anyway. The police could not have predicted that the situation
would deteriorate in the following hours and thus could not have acted
accordingly.

33. In response, the applicants argued that by
adding the word vino-zito to the sign, they had only wished to translate the
meaning of their party's name “into Macedonian”, without intending
to sow discord among the inhabitants of Florina. They considered that
the removal of the sign had not been carried out on any statutory basis
and had thus been an arbitrary act. Moreover, putting the sign back
had not been unlawful but had been consonant with their freedom of political
expression. Concerning the attack on the party headquarters, they maintained
that it had been instigated by the clergy and town council of Florina.
With the aid of municipal civil servants, some of the town councillors
had participated, together with the crowd, in the acts of criminal damage.
Lastly, they noted that the police had failed in their obligation to
intervene in order to prevent the headquarters from being ransacked
and had not conducted an effective investigation with the aim of arresting
and punishing those responsible.

B. The Court's assessment

1. General principles

34. The Court has, on a number of occasions, confirmed
the essential role played by political parties in democratic systems,
where they are afforded rights and freedoms under Article 11 of the
Convention and also under Article 10. Political parties are a form of
association essential to the proper functioning of democracy (see United Communist
Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January
1998, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 17, § 25). It is in the
nature of the role they play that political parties, the only bodies
which can come to power, also have the capacity to influence the whole
of the regime in their countries. By the proposals for an overall societal
model which they put before the electorate and by their capacity to
implement those proposals once they come to power, political parties
differ from other organisations which intervene in the political arena.
In view of their role, any measure taken against them affects freedom
of association and therefore the state of democracy in the country concerned
(see Socialist
Party of Turkey (STP) and Othersv. Turkey, no. 26482/95, § 36, 12 November 2003).

35. Further, the notion of “democratic society”
is devoid of any meaning if there is no pluralism, tolerance or open-mindedness.
In particular, pluralism is built on, for example, the genuine recognition
of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of traditions and of
ethnic and cultural identities. The harmonious interaction of persons
and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social
cohesion (see Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 92, ECHR
2004-I). Accordingly, the fact that their activities form part of a
collective exercise of freedom of expression also entitles political
parties to seek the protection of Article 10 of the Convention (see United Communist
Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, pp. 20-21, § 43). As
the Court has often reiterated, the protection of opinions and the freedom
to express them is one of the objectives of the freedom of association
as enshrined in Article 11.

36. The Court habitually acknowledges that Article
11 of the Convention also takes on a negative aspect: public authorities
must abstain from arbitrary measures capable of interfering with the
right of free assembly and association. In this context the Court has
had occasion to examine measures under Article 11 which involve the
restriction of an individual's participation in a peaceful assembly
(see Ezelin
v. France, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 202, p. 23,
§ 53), the refusal to register an association (see Gorzelik and Others, cited above, §§ 104 et seq., and Sidiropoulos
and Others v. Greece, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1617-18, §§ 46-47), and the dissolution
of a political party (see Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC],
nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 135, ECHR 2003-II).
In view of the essential nature of freedom of association and its close
relationship with democracy there must be convincing and compelling
reasons to justify such interference with this freedom.

37. Moreover, the Court has often reiterated that
the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are not theoretical
or illusory, but practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp.
15-16, § 33, and, more recently, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, pp.
18-19, § 33). It follows from that finding that a genuine and effective
respect for freedom of association cannot be reduced to a mere duty
on the part of the State not to interfere; a purely negative conception
would not be compatible with the purpose of Article 11 nor with that
of the Convention in general. There may thus be positive obligations
to secure the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of association
(see Wilson, National Union
of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 30668/96,
30671/96 and 30678/96, § 41, ECHR 2002-V) even in the sphere of relations
between individuals (see Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, judgment
of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, § 32). Accordingly, it is
incumbent upon public authorities to guarantee the proper functioning
of an association or political party, even when they annoy or give offence
to persons opposed to the lawful ideas or claims that they are seeking
to promote. Their members must be able to hold meetings without having
to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents.
Such a fear would be liable to deter other associations or political
parties from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial
issues affecting the community. In a democracy the right to counter-demonstrate
cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right of association
(see, mutatis
mutandis, Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben”, ibid.).

2. Application of the above principles
to the instant case

38. In the present case it is for the Court to
examine whether the obligations arising from Article 11 of the Convention
were fulfilled by the domestic authorities.

39. The Court notes that, on 13 September 1995,
the Florina police removed the sign on which the party's name was written
in Macedonian. The Government justified that act by the negative historical
connotation of the word vino-zito written on the sign in Macedonian. In particular,
they argued that the word had been used as the rallying cry of forces
seeking to capture the town of Florina during the civil war in Macedonia.
In the Government's view, reference to this term was capable by itself
of provoking feelings of discord among the inhabitants of Florina.

40. The Court considers that mention of the consciousness
of belonging to a minority and the preservation and development of a
minority's culture cannot be said to constitute a threat to “democratic
society”, even though it may provoke tensions (see Sidiropoulos and Others, cited above, p. 1615,
§ 41). The emergence of tensions is one of the unavoidable consequences
of pluralism, that is to say the free discussion of all political ideas.
Accordingly, the role of the authorities in such circumstances is not
to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure
that the competing political groups tolerate each other (see Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben”, cited above, p. 12,
§ 32, and Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, § 53, ECHR 1999-IX).

41. In the instant case the Court observes that
the Ouranio Toxo party is a lawfully constituted party, one of whose
aims is the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece. Affixing
a sign to the front of its headquarters with the party's name written
in Macedonian cannot be regarded as reprehensible or considered to constitute
in itself a present and imminent threat to public order. The Court accepts
that the use of the term vino-zito certainly aroused hostile sentiment among the local
population. Its ambiguous connotations were liable to offend the political
or patriotic views of the majority of the population of Florina. However,
the risk of causing tension within the community by using political
terms in public does not suffice, by itself, to justify interference
with freedom of association.

42. An additional question raised by this case
is whether the attitude of the public authorities contributed to exacerbating
the tension. In this connection the Court notes that the local authorities,
two days before the incidents, had clearly incited the population of
Florina to gather in protest against the applicants and some of their
members had taken part in the protests (see paragraphs 13-14 above).
They thus contributed through their conduct to arousing the hostile
sentiment of a section of the population against the applicants. The
Court considers that the role of State authorities is to defend and
promote the values inherent in a democratic system, such as pluralism,
tolerance and social cohesion. In the present case, it would have been
more in keeping with those values for the local authorities to advocate
a conciliatory stance, rather than to stir up confrontational attitudes.

43. Lastly, the Court must examine whether the
police sufficiently guaranteed the protection of the party's premises.
In this connection it notes that they could reasonably have foreseen
the danger that the tension would boil over into violence and clear
violations of freedom of association. The day that the sign in question
was put back, groups of people had gathered in front of the party headquarters
shouting insults and threats at the applicants. The State should therefore
have taken appropriate measures to prevent or, at least, contain the
violence. However, the Court cannot but find that the public authorities
failed to take the measures necessary in the circumstances of the case.
The Court thus observes that, when the headquarters were being attacked,
the applicants allegedly called several times for the assistance of
the police, who were located 500 metres away. They justified their failure
to intervene by claiming that no officers were available to be dispatched
to the scene. However, the Government gave no explanation for the lack
of police manpower even though the incidents had been predictable. Further,
the Court cannot overlook the fact that the public prosecutor did not
consider it necessary to start an investigation in the wake of the incidents
to determine responsibility. It was only once the applicants had lodged
a complaint that the investigation began. In cases of interference with
freedom of association by acts of individuals, the competent authorities
have an additional obligation to take effective investigative measures
(see, mutatis
mutandis, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 45, ECHR 2000-III).

44. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds
that by both their acts and their omissions the national authorities
breached Article 11 of the Convention.

...

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

...

2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 11
of the Convention;

...

Done in French, and notified in writing
on 20 October 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.